Neurodiversity at Work: Stop Taking Formula One Talent to Tesco

There is a persistent and costly misunderstanding at the heart of workforce design in Further Education. We continue to measure people against roles that were never designed with cognitive diversity in mind. Then, when individuals struggle, we interpret this as a deficit in the person rather than a mismatch between the person and the system.

A Formula One car is an engineering masterpiece. It is fast, precise, and purpose-built for a specific environment. But take it off the track and ask it to navigate a supermarket car park, carry a family, or handle speed bumps, and it fails. Not because it is flawed, but because it is in the wrong context.

This is exactly what happens when we place neurodivergent professionals, and many others, into roles or environments that do not align with how they think, process, and perform.

The question for FE leaders is not whether the car is capable. It is whether we have designed the track appropriately.

The hidden mismatch in FE workplaces

Across colleges, apprenticeship providers, and private training organisations, there is growing recognition that staff are operating under increasing cognitive and emotional load. Yet many systems still assume a “standard worker” model. This model rewards rapid verbal processing, constant availability, and unstructured collaboration.

Evidence from workplace needs assessments shows that the real issue is often not capability, but friction between the individual and the environment.

In one FE setting, a staff member experiencing sensory overload withdrew from team interaction, not due to disengagement but because the environment itself was overwhelming. In another, a technically skilled apprentice trainer was misjudged as inattentive when the real issue was the absence of structured communication.

These are not isolated cases. They reflect systemic design issues that quietly undermine performance across the sector.

At a national level, this misalignment contributes to broader inequalities. Disabled people, including many neurodivergent individuals, face a significant employment gap, with employment rates substantially lower than those of non-disabled people. This is not simply a pipeline issue. It is a design issue.

Reframing performance through the CARE model

To move beyond this, we need a consistent framework for understanding how people and roles interact. The CARE model provides a practical lens:

• Clarity: Are expectations explicit, or assumed?
• Access: Are there multiple ways to contribute?
• Recognition: Are outcomes valued over style?
• Empathy: Are individual working patterns understood and supported?

This model allows leaders to shift from “fixing the person” to redesigning the environment.

Where the mismatch shows up across the sector

The challenges of role fit are not uniform. They manifest differently across FE contexts.

FE Colleges

Colleges often rely heavily on informal interaction. Meetings are fast-paced, decision-making is reactive, and communication norms are rarely documented. This environment advantages those who process quickly in real time, but disadvantages those who need reflection or structured input.

The result is that highly capable staff may appear disengaged or underperforming when, in reality, they are operating in a system that does not align with their processing style.

Apprenticeship Providers

In apprenticeship settings, the issue often lies in the flow of communication. Verbal instructions, last-minute updates, and inconsistent feedback structures create barriers for individuals who rely on clarity and predictability.

When adjustments such as written briefs or visual task systems are introduced, performance often improves rapidly, revealing previously hidden strengths.

Private Training Providers

Private providers frequently operate at pace, with commercial pressures driving efficiency. Here, the risk is cognitive overload. Staff are expected to switch rapidly between tasks, platforms, and priorities.

Workplace needs assessments have shown that this fragmentation creates “cognitive load overflow”, where even highly skilled professionals struggle to sustain performance.

Across all three settings, the pattern is consistent: the system assumes uniformity, but the workforce is inherently diverse.

The systemic blind spot: role design, not individual deficit

One of the most significant blind spots in FE leadership is the assumption that roles are fixed and individuals must adapt.

In reality, roles are already fluid. Responsibilities shift, informal expectations emerge, and workloads evolve. Yet we rarely apply the same flexibility to structuring roles to suit different cognitive profiles.

This is particularly problematic for neurodivergent staff. Research shows that neurodiversity is characterised by patterns of both strengths and challenges, not deficits alone.

When we ignore this, we create environments where individuals must expend disproportionate energy to function. In more severe cases, this can contribute to significant mental health risks. Studies have shown that adults with ADHD, for example, face substantially higher rates of distress and adverse outcomes when unsupported.

This is not simply an inclusion issue. It is a sustainability issue.

From placement to optimisation: what needs to change

The goal is not to redesign every job beyond recognition. Nor is it to reduce expectations. The goal is to ensure people can perform at their best in their roles.

This requires a shift from placement thinking to optimisation thinking.

1. Redesign how work is experienced, not just what is done

Leaders should examine how tasks are delivered:

• Are meetings structured with clear agendas?
• Are instructions available in multiple formats?
• Is there time for reflection and processing?

Small changes in delivery can unlock significant performance improvements.

2. Use workplace needs assessments proactively

Workplace needs assessments provide a structured way to identify mismatches between individuals and their environments.

They uncover factors such as:

• Cognitive load
• Sensory barriers
• Time management challenges
• Communication preferences

When implemented effectively, these assessments improve not only individual outcomes but also team-wide systems and practices.

3. Separate outcomes from methods

Too often, performance is judged by how work is done rather than what is achieved.

For example:

• Speaking in meetings vs contributing in writing
• Rapid responses vs considered input
• Visibility vs impact

By focusing on outcomes, organisations can retain high standards while allowing flexibility in approach.

4. Build team-level adjustments, not individual exceptions

One of the biggest barriers to inclusion is the perception that adjustments are “special treatment”.

In reality, many adjustments benefit everyone:

• Clear agendas improve meeting efficiency
• Written summaries reduce errors
• Structured workflows enhance consistency

Designing inclusively at the team level reduces stigma and increases overall performance.

5. Develop leadership capability in neuroinclusive practice

Leadership capability remains inconsistent across the sector. While awareness is increasing, practical application often lags.

The ADHD Coaching Standards White Paper highlights a broader issue: the rapid growth in demand for neurodiversity support has outpaced the quality and consistency of provision.

FE leaders must therefore develop internal capability rather than relying solely on external solutions. This includes:

• Understanding cognitive diversity
• Recognising signs of mismatch
• Implementing evidence-based adjustments

The cost of getting it wrong

When we place people in roles that do not fit, the consequences are predictable:

• Reduced performance
• Increased absence
• Higher turnover
• Misinterpreted behaviours (e.g. “disengagement”, “lack of motivation”)

In more serious cases, it can lead to formal disputes, capability processes, or even legal challenges where reasonable adjustments have not been adequately considered.

But perhaps the greatest cost is the loss of potential. When a Formula One car is taken off track, we do not see what it is capable of.

A different question for FE leadership

The sector does not need to lower standards. It needs to ask better questions.

Instead of:

• Why is this person struggling?

We should ask:

• What conditions does this person need to perform at their best?
• How can this role flex without losing its purpose?
• What system changes would benefit not just one individual, but the whole team?

This is not about exception management. It is about intelligent design.

Conclusion: building tracks, not blaming cars

Further Education is under pressure to deliver more with less. In this context, optimising human performance is not optional. It is essential.

The Formula One analogy reminds us of a simple truth. Performance is contextual. Excellence depends on alignment between capability and environment.

If we continue to design roles around narrow assumptions of how people should work, we will continue to see underperformance where there is actually untapped potential.

But if we redesign our systems with clarity, access, recognition, and empathy at their core, we create environments where more people can thrive.

The goal is not to change the car.

It is to build better tracks.

By Nathan Whitbread, Founder of The Neurodivergent Coach